As the 2015 Major League Baseball season approaches, signs point to this year as a good season to be a LA Dodgers fan. The organization made the move to bring in former Oakland Athletics’ GM, Farhan Zaidi back in November, and are primed for another run this coming season.
The new general manager, along with the new president of baseball operations, Andrew Friedman have had a very active off season thus far for their new club. After letting disgruntled shortstop Hanley Ramirez leave in free agency, they also agreed to pay $30 million of Matt Kemp’s salary in order to send the temperamental outfielder south to the San Diego Padres. In addition to those moves, they also traded for shortstop Jimmy Rollins and second baseman Howie Kendrick, two solid veterans with high character qualities that will pay dividends in the locker room. They also made a couple moves that many considered questionable, like the signing of Brandon McCarthy and Brett Anderson, who are both talented pitchers but who have struggled with injuries throughout most their careers. Regardless, both should help bolster the back end of the Dodgers rotation this season.
Besides the new additions, LA is also returning some of the biggest star players in the game, Clayton Kershaw and Yasiel Puig. Kershaw is well on his way to becoming a living legend as he became only the third starting pitcher in the history of the game to lead their league in ERA for four straight seasons, and there’s little reason to doubt that he can make this season his fifth straight in leading the league in ERA.
Backing up Kershaw in the outfield is arguably the most dynamic player in the game today, Yasiel Puig. The exciting and explosive Cuban-born player continues to be one of the most entertaining players in the league. With his rocket arm that can throw runners out at home from the warning track, his blazing speed which makes any gap single into a potential double, and his acrobatic catches he makes on a routine basis, Puig is quickly becoming one of the best all-around players in the game.
With some new faces running the show this season for the Dodgers, and some solid additions to their club, the Dodgers are once again expected to be right in the thick of things come playoff time of the 2015 baseball season. Plenty of story lines to look forward to this year, especially Kershaw’s attempt to go for his fifth straight season leading the league in ERA. It’s a great year to be a fan of LA Dodgers baseball, and we look forward to another successful campaign for the upcoming season.
This article was brought you by the handicapping experts at Sports Information Traders. For 2015 MLB Picks and predictions as well as sports betting tips to help you get through this years Major League Baseball season.
Showing posts with label Dodgers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dodgers. Show all posts
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Dodgers Fantasy Outlook 2015
Author: Matt Smith
With one of the highest payrolls in the game, the Los Angeles Dodgers should be pretty competitive for the foreseeable future. However, for a franchise that has not won a World Series in over 25 years, being competitive is not enough. They have made some changes heading into the 2015 season to their roster, and the hope is that it is enough for regular and postseason success.
With one of the highest payrolls in the game, the Los Angeles Dodgers should be pretty competitive for the foreseeable future. However, for a franchise that has not won a World Series in over 25 years, being competitive is not enough. They have made some changes heading into the 2015 season to their roster, and the hope is that it is enough for regular and postseason success.
Even though they have a lot of fantasy baseball talent last season, nothing seemed to really click with the franchise consistently. They would play well in spurts, but then they would go on a cold streak. About the only dependable player on the roster was Clayton Kershaw, and ironically he became inconsistent as soon as the postseason began.
Andrew Feldman was brought in to help make better decisions in the front office for the Los Angeles Dodgers. With seemingly unlimited funds compared to what he was working with in Tampa Bay, it will be interesting to see what type of deals he pulls off in the future. Right away, he decided to go after veteran players who have championship pedigrees. Jimmy Rollins and Howie Kendrick can still provide value in fantasy baseball, but they will be just as important in the locker room.
Joc Pederson might not be new to the franchise, but he will now take over as the new everyday center fielder for the franchise. Many look at him as one of the top youngsters in the game, so he will need to hit the ground running in 2015. The franchise specifically made room for him by trading away some pretty decent talent, so it will be interesting to see what he does with a little bit more pressure on him.
Not only has losing been tough for the Los Angeles Dodgers in the postseason, but watching the San Francisco Giants win 3 World Series in the last 5 seasons stings. Hopefully, with some subtle moves, this team will be a bit better when the games matter most.
Sunday, January 04, 2015
How Good Is Don Mattingly At Setting The Batting Order
.
My simulator is a good tool for looking at optimal batting orders. It can play tens of thousands and even millions (with a smaller set of games) of games while keeping the opponent static which can give you a good idea which lineups win more games. Taking an idea from the "straight arrows" over at The Book Blog, I decided to take the 2014 Dodgers most common lineup, that one can find over at the Baseball Reference website and compare how well that lineup does against tens of thousands of other possible lineup permutations. I did set some filters to cut down on the permutations, like I only looked at lineups where the pitcher hit 8th or 9th and where the best hitters didn't hit 8th or 9th and the worst hitters didn't hit 3rd or 4th etc... I wanted to see how well Mattingly's most common lineup compared to what the simulator thought was the most optimal lineup. Of course you can't expect any manager to be implementing the most optimal lineup but you also don't want him to be giving away fractions of wins each game that can add up over a 162 game season. So down below, I list the Top 25 lineups along with the most common 2014 lineup in a table sorted by Wins/162 games. I also list a table showing the frequency of where each player batted in each of the top 25 lineups. I love the batting order frequency tables as they show you which players have a few dedicated positions in the order they should be hitting in and which players are more versatile in giving you an optimal lineup. I used 2014 final season stats as the input projections for each hitter because that is for the most part what Don Mattingly went by. And I did all the simulations with the opposing team using a right handed starting pitcher.
Before we begin, here is the most common 2014 Dodgers lineup.
Gordon-Puig-Gonzales-Kemp-Ramirez-Crawford-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher
Top 25 Lineups
.
And for comparison sake the worst lineup was 3.55 wins/162 games worst than the best lineup.
Worst: Ellis-Uribe-Puig-Kemp-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Crawford-Pitcher-Gordon
.
Batting Order Frequency Table
.
Analysis:
So the simulator thinks that Mattingly left around 0.84 wins off the table over 162 games with his most common lineup. I will leave that up to the reader if they think that is significant. Keep in mind that one win (or WAR) is going for about $7 million dollars on the free agent market.
I think Mattingly's lineup is an above average one when using common and traditional methods for constructing a lineup. A look at the Batting Order Frequency Table (BOF Table) does show what the simulator thinks are a few glaring mistakes though. When we look at the BOF Table you will notice that a few players are more versatile in the lineup slot that they give the most value in. Puig for example only slots into three locations... leadoff(3), second(8) and fifth(14) while players like Kemp and Ellis slot in to many more locations but not as frequently. Let's walk through each player in Mattingly's lineup one at a time and look for strengths and weaknesses.
Player by Player Analysis:
Leadoff - Dee Gordon: Mattingly has Dee Gordon in the leadoff spot and according to the simulator that is the best spot for him, though hitting 6th can be good as well as batting 2nd depending of course on the rest of the batting order makeup. Nails it.
Second - Yasiel Puig: Puig's best spot is hitting fifth where he can help rack up the RBIs but hitting second is also a good spot for Puig. I think Mattingly does well on Puig's position in the order. Good
Third - Adrian Gonzalez: Just like with Puig, Mattingly has slotted Gonzalez into his second best spot in the batting order. The simulator prefers Gonzalez hitting one spot lower which wouldn't ordinarily be that big of a deal as long as the person batting fourth in his place belonged there too. Good
Cleanup - Matt Kemp: The simulator thinks Kemp is many things but a cleanup hitter on this team is not one of them. According to the simulator it is a big mistake to bat Kemp fourth. There are many lineup positions that Kemp can slot into and you can still have a highly optimal lineup but fourth is not one of them. Stink
Fifth - Hanley Ramirez: Out of the top 25 lineups the simulator has Ramirez hitting fifth only once. The simulator seems to like Gonzalez and Ramirez hitting in the 3rd/4th slots in either order making this another glaring mistake according to the sim. The 4th and 5th spots in the lineup are probably not good spots to be making mistakes at. Stink
Sixth - Carl Crawford: Crawford also is pretty versatile in where he slots in to the top 25 lineups and Mattingly gets back on the winning track as he nails this one. Crawford hits 6th in 11 out of the top 25 most optimal lineups including three of the top five. Nails it.
Seventh - Juan Uribe: The simulator thinks that Uribe should hit seventh or eighth and that is exactly where Mattingly puts him. Slow, low on base second tier power hitters are good for the bottom of the lineup as they tend to give you that last good chance to clear the bases before the black hole of the pitcher batting. Nails it.
Eighth - A.J. Ellis: Ellis like Kemp is able to slot in to many different lineup spots without causing carnage to the optimization of it. Ellis is not a very good hitter but he still does bring a decent skill of drawing walks to the table, that is why you see him hitting at the top of the lineup a few times and ninth. His poor hitting but good on base skills are a good fit for hitting 9th and moving the pitcher to 8th as he turns in to a quasi leadoff hitter in the 9th spot. Good.
Ninth - Pitchers Spot: The simulator has the pitcher hitting 9th in 17 out of 25 (68%) of the top lineups. So there can be some value to hitting the pitcher eighth but you have to have the right personnel and batting order mix to make it work. Nails it.
.
Overall, Mattingly does a pretty good job but the simulator thinks he made big mistakes in hitting Matt Kemp cleanup and Hanley Ramirez fifth and really with the tools that Mattingly has (instincts) you really wouldn't know this was a mistake.
.
My simulator is a good tool for looking at optimal batting orders. It can play tens of thousands and even millions (with a smaller set of games) of games while keeping the opponent static which can give you a good idea which lineups win more games. Taking an idea from the "straight arrows" over at The Book Blog, I decided to take the 2014 Dodgers most common lineup, that one can find over at the Baseball Reference website and compare how well that lineup does against tens of thousands of other possible lineup permutations. I did set some filters to cut down on the permutations, like I only looked at lineups where the pitcher hit 8th or 9th and where the best hitters didn't hit 8th or 9th and the worst hitters didn't hit 3rd or 4th etc... I wanted to see how well Mattingly's most common lineup compared to what the simulator thought was the most optimal lineup. Of course you can't expect any manager to be implementing the most optimal lineup but you also don't want him to be giving away fractions of wins each game that can add up over a 162 game season. So down below, I list the Top 25 lineups along with the most common 2014 lineup in a table sorted by Wins/162 games. I also list a table showing the frequency of where each player batted in each of the top 25 lineups. I love the batting order frequency tables as they show you which players have a few dedicated positions in the order they should be hitting in and which players are more versatile in giving you an optimal lineup. I used 2014 final season stats as the input projections for each hitter because that is for the most part what Don Mattingly went by. And I did all the simulations with the opposing team using a right handed starting pitcher.
Before we begin, here is the most common 2014 Dodgers lineup.
Gordon-Puig-Gonzales-Kemp-Ramirez-Crawford-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher
Top 25 Lineups
| Rank | Lineup | Wins/162 Behind |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kemp-Gordon-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Ellis-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.000 |
| 2 | Gordon-Ellis-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Kemp-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.059 |
| 3 | Gordon-Ellis-Crawford-Ramirez-Puig-Gonzalez-Kemp-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.060 |
| 4 | Gordon-Puig-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Crawford-Kemp-Uribe-Pitcher-Ellis | 0.090 |
| 5 | Gordon-Ellis-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Puig-Crawford-Kemp-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.108 |
| 6 | Puig-Crawford-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Kemp-Gordon-Ellis-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.163 |
| 7 | Ellis-Gordon-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Kemp-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.218 |
| 8 | Ellis-Puig-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Crawford-Kemp-Uribe-Pitcher-Gordon | 0.226 |
| 9 | Gordon-Puig-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Kemp-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher-Ellis | 0.243 |
| 10 | Puig-Crawford-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Kemp-Gordon-Uribe-Pitcher-Ellis | 0.261 |
| 11 | Crawford-Kemp-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Puig-Gordon-Ellis-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.307 |
| 12 | Gordon-Puig-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Kemp-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher-Ellis | 0.316 |
| 13 | Ellis-Gordon-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Puig-Kemp-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.326 |
| 14 | Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Kemp-Gordon-Uribe-Pitcher-Ellis | 0.348 |
| 15 | Crawford-Puig-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Kemp-Gordon-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher | 0.379 |
| 16 | Kemp-Crawford-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Puig-Gordon-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher | 0.402 |
| 17 | Ellis-Puig-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Crawford-Kemp-Gordon-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.412 |
| 18 | Gordon-Ramirez-Kemp-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Ellis-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.430 |
| 19 | Gordon-Kemp-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher | 0.430 |
| 20 | Gordon-Ramirez-Kemp-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher | 0.456 |
| 21 | Gordon-Puig-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Kemp-Crawford-Ellis-Pitcher-Uribe | 0.513 |
| 22 | Ramirez-Gordon-Kemp-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher | 0.551 |
| 23 | Gordon-Ellis-Crawford-Ramirez-Puig-Gonzalez-Kemp-Pitcher-Uribe | 0.580 |
| 24 | Puig-Crawford-Kemp-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Gordon-Ellis-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.604 |
| 25 | Gordon-Ramirez-Kemp-Gonzalez-Puig-Ellis-Crawford-Urube-Pitcher | 0.613 |
| 55 | Gordon-Puig-Gonzalez-Kemp-Ramirez-Crawford-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher | 0.837 |
And for comparison sake the worst lineup was 3.55 wins/162 games worst than the best lineup.
Worst: Ellis-Uribe-Puig-Kemp-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Crawford-Pitcher-Gordon
.
Batting Order Frequency Table
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gordon | 12 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Puig | 3 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gonzalez | 0 | 0 | 9 | 14 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kemp | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Ramirez | 1 | 3 | 9 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Crawford | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Uribe | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | 2 |
| Ellis | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| Pitcher | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 17 |
.
Analysis:
So the simulator thinks that Mattingly left around 0.84 wins off the table over 162 games with his most common lineup. I will leave that up to the reader if they think that is significant. Keep in mind that one win (or WAR) is going for about $7 million dollars on the free agent market.
I think Mattingly's lineup is an above average one when using common and traditional methods for constructing a lineup. A look at the Batting Order Frequency Table (BOF Table) does show what the simulator thinks are a few glaring mistakes though. When we look at the BOF Table you will notice that a few players are more versatile in the lineup slot that they give the most value in. Puig for example only slots into three locations... leadoff(3), second(8) and fifth(14) while players like Kemp and Ellis slot in to many more locations but not as frequently. Let's walk through each player in Mattingly's lineup one at a time and look for strengths and weaknesses.
Player by Player Analysis:
Leadoff - Dee Gordon: Mattingly has Dee Gordon in the leadoff spot and according to the simulator that is the best spot for him, though hitting 6th can be good as well as batting 2nd depending of course on the rest of the batting order makeup. Nails it.
Second - Yasiel Puig: Puig's best spot is hitting fifth where he can help rack up the RBIs but hitting second is also a good spot for Puig. I think Mattingly does well on Puig's position in the order. Good
Third - Adrian Gonzalez: Just like with Puig, Mattingly has slotted Gonzalez into his second best spot in the batting order. The simulator prefers Gonzalez hitting one spot lower which wouldn't ordinarily be that big of a deal as long as the person batting fourth in his place belonged there too. Good
Cleanup - Matt Kemp: The simulator thinks Kemp is many things but a cleanup hitter on this team is not one of them. According to the simulator it is a big mistake to bat Kemp fourth. There are many lineup positions that Kemp can slot into and you can still have a highly optimal lineup but fourth is not one of them. Stink
Fifth - Hanley Ramirez: Out of the top 25 lineups the simulator has Ramirez hitting fifth only once. The simulator seems to like Gonzalez and Ramirez hitting in the 3rd/4th slots in either order making this another glaring mistake according to the sim. The 4th and 5th spots in the lineup are probably not good spots to be making mistakes at. Stink
Sixth - Carl Crawford: Crawford also is pretty versatile in where he slots in to the top 25 lineups and Mattingly gets back on the winning track as he nails this one. Crawford hits 6th in 11 out of the top 25 most optimal lineups including three of the top five. Nails it.
Seventh - Juan Uribe: The simulator thinks that Uribe should hit seventh or eighth and that is exactly where Mattingly puts him. Slow, low on base second tier power hitters are good for the bottom of the lineup as they tend to give you that last good chance to clear the bases before the black hole of the pitcher batting. Nails it.
Eighth - A.J. Ellis: Ellis like Kemp is able to slot in to many different lineup spots without causing carnage to the optimization of it. Ellis is not a very good hitter but he still does bring a decent skill of drawing walks to the table, that is why you see him hitting at the top of the lineup a few times and ninth. His poor hitting but good on base skills are a good fit for hitting 9th and moving the pitcher to 8th as he turns in to a quasi leadoff hitter in the 9th spot. Good.
Ninth - Pitchers Spot: The simulator has the pitcher hitting 9th in 17 out of 25 (68%) of the top lineups. So there can be some value to hitting the pitcher eighth but you have to have the right personnel and batting order mix to make it work. Nails it.
.
Overall, Mattingly does a pretty good job but the simulator thinks he made big mistakes in hitting Matt Kemp cleanup and Hanley Ramirez fifth and really with the tools that Mattingly has (instincts) you really wouldn't know this was a mistake.
.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
2015 Dodgers Best Lineup (vs LHP) Part II
.
I am looking at best lineup vs LHP again for the Dodgers using my simulator. This time i substituted out Carl Crawford for Scott Van Slyke and substituted Joc Pederson out for Chris Heisey for platoon advantages purposes. There are a few surprises here, mainly so many highly ranked permutations liking Van Slyke hitting leadoff. Van Slyke mashes left handed pitching with both a high OBP and SLG with average speed at best. So this is not a result you would see using traditional lineup building methods. Of course very little logic and analytical thinking is put into the traditional methods as you tend to see a lot of inertial reasoning behind the arguments of where prototypical hitters should bat in the lineup. So with no further ado, here are the Top 50 lineups vs LHP with the listed substitutions above along with a list of how many times each of the 8 hitters appears in each lineup spot.
Previous best lineup posts
Best Lineup vs RHP | Best Lineup vs LHP, Part 1
Top 50 Lineups
.
.
Count By Lineup Spot
.
.
Note: Each game/lineup simulated 100K times.
and Wins/162 is the number of wins you give up over a 162 game season by using the listed lineup vs the most efficient one (per the simulator).
.
I am looking at best lineup vs LHP again for the Dodgers using my simulator. This time i substituted out Carl Crawford for Scott Van Slyke and substituted Joc Pederson out for Chris Heisey for platoon advantages purposes. There are a few surprises here, mainly so many highly ranked permutations liking Van Slyke hitting leadoff. Van Slyke mashes left handed pitching with both a high OBP and SLG with average speed at best. So this is not a result you would see using traditional lineup building methods. Of course very little logic and analytical thinking is put into the traditional methods as you tend to see a lot of inertial reasoning behind the arguments of where prototypical hitters should bat in the lineup. So with no further ado, here are the Top 50 lineups vs LHP with the listed substitutions above along with a list of how many times each of the 8 hitters appears in each lineup spot.
Previous best lineup posts
Best Lineup vs RHP | Best Lineup vs LHP, Part 1
Top 50 Lineups
| Rank | Lineup | Wins/162 Behind |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Van Slyke-Puig-Uribe-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Grandal-Heisey-Pitcher | 0 |
| 2 | Van Slyke-Puig-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.012 |
| 3 | Van Slyke-Puig-Heisey-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.022 |
| 4 | Van Slyke-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.059 |
| 5 | Van Slyke-Heisey-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Puig-Rollins-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.066 |
| 6 | Puig-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Grandal-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.086 |
| 7 | Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Puig-Grandal-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.087 |
| 8 | Van Slyke-Puig-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Grandal-Heisey-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.145 |
| 9 | Rollins-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Grandal-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.163 |
| 10 | Van Slyke-Rollins-Uribe-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Grandal-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.213 |
| 11 | Van Slyke-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Rollins-Heisey-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.230 |
| 12 | Rollins-Puig-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Van Slyke-Grandal-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.239 |
| 13 | Kendrick-Puig-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Rollins-Uribe-Grandal-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.243 |
| 14 | Puig-Van Slyke-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Grandal-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.252 |
| 15 | Kendrick-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Van Slyke-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.288 |
| 16 | Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Van Slyke-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.289 |
| 17 | Van Slyke-Puig-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Heisey-Rollins-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.291 |
| 18 | Kendrick-Puig-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Rollins-Heisey-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.308 |
| 19 | Van Slyke-Puig-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Heisey-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.315 |
| 20 | Rollins-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Kendrick-Heisey-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.315 |
| 21 | Uribe-Van Slyke-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.315 |
| 22 | Puig-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Uribe-Kendrick-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.321 |
| 23 | Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Heisey-Kendrick-Puig-Rollins-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.323 |
| 24 | Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Kendrick-Van Slyke-Heisey-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.340 |
| 25 | Puig-Gonzalez-Van Slyke-Kendrick-Rollins-Heisey-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.371 |
| 26 | Van Slyke-Rollins-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Heisey-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.382 |
| 27 | Puig-Kendrick-Heisey-Gonzalez-Rollins-Van Slyke-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.399 |
| 28 | Rollins-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Puig-Van Slyke-Heisey-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.401 |
| 29 | Van Slyke-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Heisey-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.408 |
| 30 | Puig-Van Slyke-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Grandal-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.427 |
| 31 | Van Slyke-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Uribe-Heisey-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.460 |
| 32 | Puig-Kendrick-Heisey-Gonzalez-Rollins-Uribe-Van Slyke-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.468 |
| 33 | Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Heisey-Puig-Uribe-Van Slyke-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.475 |
| 34 | Van Slyke-Heisey-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.492 |
| 35 | Rollins-Puig-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Heisey-Van Slyke-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.500 |
| 36 | Rollins-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Uribe-Heisey-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.500 |
| 37 | Uribe-Puig-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Heisey-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.514 |
| 38 | Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Grandal-Van Slyke-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.514 |
| 39 | Rollins-Van Slyke-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Uribe-Grandal-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.541 |
| 40 | Van Slyke-Uribe-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Grandal-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.548 |
| 41 | Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Grandal-Gonzalez-Van Slyke-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.555 |
| 42 | Heisey-Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Van Slyke-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.586 |
| 43 | Kendrick-Uribe-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Grandal-Van Slyke-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.596 |
| 44 | Rollins-Gonzalez-Heisey-Kendrick-Puig-Van Slyke-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.626 |
| 45 | Uribe-Puig-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Van Slyke-Heisey-Pitcher | 0.630 |
| 46 | Van Slyke-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Heisey-Kendrick-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.643 |
| 47 | Puig-Van Slyke-Grandal-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Heisey-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.721 |
| 48 | Kendrick-Rollins-Van Slyke-Puig-Gonzalez-Heisey-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.744 |
| 49 | Puig-Van Slyke-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Heisey-Uribe-Rollins-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.749 |
| 50 | Puig-Van Slyke-Uribe-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Heisey-Rollins-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.035 |
.
Count By Lineup Spot
| Player | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Van Slyke | 18 | 12 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 4 | 0 |
| Puig | 13 | 14 | 1 | 9 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gonzalez | 0 | 5 | 15 | 25 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kendrick | 6 | 5 | 8 | 11 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 0 |
| Rollins | 9 | 9 | 7 | 0 | 16 | 7 | 2 | 0 |
| Uribe | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 21 | 9 |
| Heisey | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 21 |
| Grandal | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 20 |
.
Note: Each game/lineup simulated 100K times.
and Wins/162 is the number of wins you give up over a 162 game season by using the listed lineup vs the most efficient one (per the simulator).
.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
2015 Dodgers Best Lineup (vs LHP)
Now I take a look at the Dodgers best lineup(s) vs left handed pitchers. I used the same 8 starters as I did when I looked at best lineups vs RHP. I may do this again putting some right handed bats in for a few of the left handed hitters. You may notice that the best lineup vs RHP is ranked 9th vs LHP.
Previous Post: 2015 Dodgers Best Lineup (vs RHP)
Top 100 Batting Orders
| Rank | Lineup | Wins Behind |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Pederson-Grandal-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.000 |
| 2 | Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.136 |
| 3 | Pederson-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Puig-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.471 |
| 4 | Pederson-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.473 |
| 5 | Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.531 |
| 6 | Pederson-Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.549 |
| 7 | Crawford-Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.661 |
| 8 | Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Uribe-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.667 |
| 9 | Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.675 |
| 10 | Rollins-Pederson-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.689 |
| 11 | Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.692 |
| 12 | Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.724 |
| 13 | Crawford-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.739 |
| 14 | Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.763 |
| 15 | Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Pederson-Grandal-Rollins-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.765 |
| 16 | Pederson-Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.771 |
| 17 | Pederson-Puig-Uribe-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.792 |
| 18 | Kendrick-Crawford-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.799 |
| 19 | Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.804 |
| 20 | Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Grandal-Crawford-Kendrick-Pitcher | 0.816 |
| 21 | Uribe-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.820 |
| 22 | Pederson-Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.825 |
| 23 | Crawford-Puig-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Pederson-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.826 |
| 24 | Crawford-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.834 |
| 25 | Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Rollins-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.834 |
| 26 | Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Rollins-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.844 |
| 27 | Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher | 0.847 |
| 28 | Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.859 |
| 29 | Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.878 |
| 30 | Crawford-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.880 |
| 31 | Puig-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.891 |
| 32 | Crawford-Rollins-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Kendrick-Pitcher | 0.897 |
| 33 | Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.910 |
| 34 | Rollins-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.936 |
| 35 | Pederson-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Puig-Crawford-Rollins-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.940 |
| 36 | Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Puig-Grandal-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.943 |
| 37 | Puig-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.944 |
| 38 | Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.944 |
| 39 | Uribe-Pederson-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Rollins-Kendrick-Pitcher | 0.944 |
| 40 | Rollins-Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.957 |
| 41 | Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.969 |
| 42 | Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.972 |
| 43 | Crawford-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.978 |
| 44 | Crawford-Puig-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.988 |
| 45 | Puig-Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.991 |
| 46 | Pederson-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 0.995 |
| 47 | Crawford-Puig-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.995 |
| 48 | Puig-Rollins-Pederson-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.996 |
| 49 | Puig-Pederson-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.009 |
| 50 | Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.009 |
| 51 | Puig-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.014 |
| 52 | Pederson-Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.027 |
| 53 | Puig-Crawford-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Uribe-Pederson-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.043 |
| 54 | Pederson-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.048 |
| 55 | Crawford-Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.055 |
| 56 | Uribe-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.055 |
| 57 | Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.077 |
| 58 | Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.092 |
| 59 | Kendrick-Uribe-Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.100 |
| 60 | Uribe-Crawford-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Kendrick-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.106 |
| 61 | Pederson-Kendrick-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.124 |
| 62 | Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.129 |
| 63 | Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.144 |
| 64 | Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Pederson-Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.149 |
| 65 | Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Grandal-Pederson-Kendrick-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.150 |
| 66 | Crawford-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Uribe-Pederson-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.165 |
| 67 | Puig-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.166 |
| 68 | Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Uribe-Pederson-Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.166 |
| 69 | Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.171 |
| 70 | Puig-Crawford-Grandal-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.173 |
| 71 | Puig-Pederson-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.183 |
| 72 | Pederson-Puig-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.189 |
| 73 | Kendrick-Puig-Uribe-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.199 |
| 74 | Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.202 |
| 75 | Crawford-Kendrick-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.210 |
| 76 | Crawford-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Pederson-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.212 |
| 77 | Pederson-Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.213 |
| 78 | Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.215 |
| 79 | Kendrick-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.223 |
| 80 | Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Kendrick-Rollins-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.225 |
| 81 | Rollins-Puig-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Pederson-Pitcher | 1.226 |
| 82 | Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.231 |
| 83 | Crawford-Puig-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Rollins-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.256 |
| 84 | Pederson-Puig-Uribe-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.257 |
| 85 | Pederson-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.259 |
| 86 | Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Puig-Uribe-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.272 |
| 87 | Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Puig-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.273 |
| 88 | Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Crawford-Rollins-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.275 |
| 89 | Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.278 |
| 90 | Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Rollins-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.288 |
| 91 | Puig-Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Grandal-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.288 |
| 92 | Puig-Pederson-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.296 |
| 93 | Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.309 |
| 94 | Pederson-Uribe-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.317 |
| 95 | Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Pederson-Puig-Crawford-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.332 |
| 96 | Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Pederson-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.341 |
| 97 | Puig-Pederson-Grandal-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.348 |
| 98 | Crawford-Puig-Uribe-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Pitcher | 1.354 |
| 99 | Pederson-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Uribe-Grandal-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.367 |
| 100 | Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.377 |
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
2015 Dodgers Best Lineup (vs RHP)
The Dodgers have made quite a few changes to their roster this month and I figured it would be a good idea to run the currently projected starters through my simulator to see which lineups it thought were the best. First off, I looked at the best lineup vs RHP. After a few iteration it became obvious that the lineups the simulator liked the most had the threesome of Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal hitting somewhere in the 3-4-5 spots in the lineup. So in this exercise I took all the possible lineups with those three hitting in the 3-4-5 spots in any order with the added caveat of not allowing any left handed hitters to hit back to back (170 total permutations). For input, I used 2015 Steamer projections. I simulated each game 100,000 times. While yes, there is a margin of error but you will definitely see what the simulator feels is the best lineups grouped near the top. If you aren't familiar with it, my simulator simulates actual baseball games and takes pretty much everything you can imagine into account. Keep in mind this is just an exercise and I am not advocating using these top lineups nor am I expecting the team to do so. But I do believe that lineup construction is something that teams should worry about a little bit more as over the course of the season an NL team could easily add another win or two to their total. As a side note, the lineup that MLB Depth Charts lists as the most likely lineup ranks #42.
Best Lineups
| Rank | Lineup | Wins Behind |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pederson-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.00 |
| 2 | Pederson-Kendrick-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.33 |
| 3 | Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.40 |
| 4 | Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Crawford-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.43 |
| 5 | Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.44 |
| 6 | Pederson-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Crawford-Rollins-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.48 |
| 7 | Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher | 0.52 |
| 8 | Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher | 0.58 |
| 9 | Crawford-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Uribe-Pederson-Kendrick-Pitcher | 0.63 |
| 10 | Crawford-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.66 |
| 11 | Pederson-Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Crawford-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.67 |
| 12 | Crawford-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Pederson-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.68 |
| 13 | Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.70 |
| 14 | Pederson-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.81 |
| 15 | Crawford-Kendrick-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.83 |
| 16 | Pederson-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Uribe-Crawford-Kendrick-Pitcher | 0.83 |
| 17 | Pederson-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.85 |
| 18 | Pederson-Rollins-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.91 |
| 19 | Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Rollins-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.91 |
| 20 | Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.92 |
| 21 | Rollins-Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.92 |
| 22 | Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Uribe-Crawford-Kendrick-Pitcher | 0.93 |
| 23 | Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher | 0.94 |
| 24 | Crawford-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Kendrick-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.95 |
| 25 | Pederson-Kendrick-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 0.98 |
| 26 | Pederson-Uribe-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Crawford-Rollins-Kendrick-Pitcher | 0.99 |
| 27 | Pederson-Uribe-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.03 |
| 28 | Pederson-Uribe-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.05 |
| 29 | Crawford-Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.05 |
| 30 | Uribe-Pederson-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Rollins-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.06 |
| 31 | Kendrick-Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.15 |
| 32 | Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Pederson-Rollins-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.19 |
| 33 | Kendrick-Pederson-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Uribe-Crawford-Rollins-Pitcher | 1.21 |
| 34 | Kendrick-Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Crawford-Rollins-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.23 |
| 35 | Pederson-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Rollins-Pitcher | 1.26 |
| 36 | Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Crawford-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.29 |
| 37 | Crawford-Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Kendrick-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.30 |
| 38 | Kendrick-Pederson-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.32 |
| 39 | Crawford-Rollins-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.34 |
| 40 | Pederson-Uribe-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.42 |
| 41 | Crawford-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.45 |
| 42 | Rollins-Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Kendrick-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.47 |
| 43 | Uribe-Pederson-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Crawford-Rollins-Pitcher | 1.47 |
| 44 | Uribe-Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Rollins-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.49 |
| 45 | Rollins-Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Uribe-Crawford-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.49 |
| 46 | Kendrick-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.56 |
| 47 | Pederson-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.57 |
| 48 | Pederson-Rollins-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.58 |
| 49 | Pederson-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Rollins-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.58 |
| 50 | Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Rollins-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.58 |
| 51 | Crawford-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Uribe-Pederson-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.60 |
| 52 | Uribe-Pederson-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.60 |
| 53 | Pederson-Uribe-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.65 |
| 54 | Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.65 |
| 55 | Uribe-Kendrick-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.72 |
| 56 | Pederson-Uribe-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Kendrick-Crawford-Rollins-Pitcher | 1.72 |
| 57 | Rollins-Pederson-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Uribe-Crawford-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.72 |
| 58 | Pederson-Uribe-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.72 |
| 59 | Crawford-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Uribe-Pederson-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.74 |
| 60 | Crawford-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Uribe-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 1.74 |
| 61 | Rollins-Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Crawford-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.77 |
| 62 | Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Uribe-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.78 |
| 63 | Kendrick-Crawford-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.78 |
| 64 | Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Pederson-Pitcher | 1.78 |
| 65 | Crawford-Rollins-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.79 |
| 66 | Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Rollins-Pitcher | 1.79 |
| 67 | Crawford-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Rollins-Pitcher | 1.80 |
| 68 | Pederson-Kendrick-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Uribe-Crawford-Rollins-Pitcher | 1.80 |
| 69 | Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.80 |
| 70 | Kendrick-Uribe-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.81 |
| 71 | Crawford-Kendrick-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher | 1.81 |
| 72 | Uribe-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.82 |
| 73 | Pederson-Uribe-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Rollins-Pitcher | 1.84 |
| 74 | Pederson-Uribe-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Rollins-Pitcher | 1.85 |
| 75 | Pederson-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Rollins-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.86 |
| 76 | Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Rollins-Pitcher | 1.87 |
| 77 | Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Uribe-Pederson-Pitcher | 1.87 |
| 78 | Pederson-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Uribe-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 1.91 |
| 79 | Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Uribe-Crawford-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.94 |
| 80 | Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.94 |
| 81 | Rollins-Kendrick-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Pederson-Pitcher | 1.95 |
| 82 | Crawford-Uribe-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Pederson-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.95 |
| 83 | Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Kendrick-Pitcher | 1.96 |
| 84 | Crawford-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puit-Kendrick-Uribe-Pederson-Pitcher | 1.99 |
| 85 | Uribe-Pederson-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.01 |
| 86 | Rollins-Uribe-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Pederson-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.03 |
| 87 | Pederson-Rollins-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Uribe-Crawford-Kendrick-Pitcher | 2.05 |
| 88 | Pederson-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Uribe-Rollins-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.06 |
| 89 | Kendrick-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.07 |
| 90 | Crawford-Uribe-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Kendrick-Pitcher | 2.09 |
| 91 | Pederson-Rollins-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.10 |
| 92 | Pederson-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Uribe-Crawford-Rollins-Pitcher | 2.11 |
| 93 | Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.11 |
| 94 | Crawford-Uribe-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Kendrick-Pederson-Rollins-Pitcher | 2.14 |
| 95 | Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.14 |
| 96 | Pederson-Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Uribe-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.14 |
| 97 | Pederson-Kendrick-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.14 |
| 98 | Crawford-Uribe-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Pederson-Kendrick-Rollins-Pitcher | 2.15 |
| 99 | Rollins-Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Kendrick-Uribe-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.16 |
| 100 | Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Pederson-Rollins-Pitcher | 2.17 |
| 101 | Rollins-Uribe-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.20 |
| 102 | Rollins-Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Kendrick-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.23 |
| 103 | Uribe-Crawford-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Kendrick-Pitcher | 2.23 |
| 104 | Pederson-Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Kendrick-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.24 |
| 105 | Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Uribe-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.24 |
| 106 | Pederson-Kendrick-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.28 |
| 107 | Uribe-Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.29 |
| 108 | Kendrick-Uribe-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.32 |
| 109 | Crawford-Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Uribe-Pederson-Kendrick-Pitcher | 2.33 |
| 110 | Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.33 |
| 111 | Uribe-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.34 |
| 112 | Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.35 |
| 113 | Pederson-Uribe-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.35 |
| 114 | Kendrick-Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Uribe-Pederson-Rollins-Pitcher | 2.35 |
| 115 | Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Uribe-Rollins-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.36 |
| 116 | Uribe-Pederson-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Pitcher | 2.37 |
| 117 | Pederson-Uribe-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Rollins-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.39 |
| 118 | Crawford-Uribe-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Pederson-Rollins-Kendrick-Pitcher | 2.40 |
| 119 | Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.42 |
| 120 | Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Rollins-Uribe-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.43 |
| 121 | Kendrick-Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Crawford-Uribe-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.47 |
| 122 | Crawford-Uribe-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.47 |
| 123 | Crawford-Kendrick-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Uribe-Rollins-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.49 |
| 124 | Kendrick-Crawford-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Rollins-Pitcher | 2.49 |
| 125 | Uribe-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Crawford-Rollins-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.50 |
| 126 | Pederson-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Uribe-Crawford-Rollins-Pitcher | 2.52 |
| 127 | Kendrick-Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.52 |
| 128 | Rollins-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Crawford-Uribe-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.53 |
| 129 | Pederson-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Uribe-Rollins-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.53 |
| 130 | Kendrick-Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.56 |
| 131 | Pederson-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.57 |
| 132 | Kendrick-Uribe-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Rollins-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.60 |
| 133 | Crawford-Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Uribe-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.63 |
| 134 | Kendrick-Crawford-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Uribe-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.63 |
| 135 | Uribe-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Pederson-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.64 |
| 136 | Crawford-Rollins-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Uribe-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.66 |
| 137 | Crawford-Rollins-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.67 |
| 138 | Uribe-Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.69 |
| 139 | Uribe-Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Crawford-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.70 |
| 140 | Rollins-Uribe-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Crawford-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.70 |
| 141 | Kendrick-Pederson-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Rollins-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.71 |
| 142 | Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Uribe-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.71 |
| 143 | Pederson-Uribe-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Kendrick-Crawford-Rollins-Pitcher | 2.73 |
| 144 | Uribe-Pederson-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.76 |
| 145 | Kendrick-Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Uribe-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.77 |
| 146 | Pederson-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Uribe-Rollins-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.77 |
| 147 | Pederson-Uribe-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.78 |
| 148 | Uribe-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Pitcher | 2.79 |
| 149 | Crawford-Uribe-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Kendrick-Rollins-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.79 |
| 150 | Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.79 |
| 151 | Pederson-Kendrick-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Uribe-Crawford-Rollins-Pitcher | 2.80 |
| 152 | Crawford-Uribe-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Pederson-Rollins-Pitcher | 2.83 |
| 153 | Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Uribe-Rollins-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.86 |
| 154 | Rollins-Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Uribe-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.90 |
| 155 | Crawford-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Uribe-Rollins-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.94 |
| 156 | Crawford-Uribe-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Kendrick-Rollins-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.94 |
| 157 | Uribe-Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Kendrick-Rollins-Pederson-Pitcher | 2.96 |
| 158 | Rollins-Crawford-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Uribe-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 3.00 |
| 159 | Kendrick-Uribe-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Crawford-Rollins-Pederson-Pitcher | 3.00 |
| 160 | Crawford-Uribe-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Rollins-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 3.01 |
| 161 | Pederson-Rollins-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Uribe-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher | 3.03 |
| 162 | Uribe-Crawford-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 3.04 |
| 163 | Kendrick-Uribe-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Pitcher | 3.05 |
| 164 | Crawford-Uribe-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Kendrick-Pederson-Pitcher | 3.12 |
| 165 | Pederson-Uribe-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Kendrick-Rollins-Crawford-Pitcher | 3.12 |
| 166 | Crawford-Uribe-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Kendrick-Pederson-Rollins-Pitcher | 3.16 |
| 167 | Crawford-Rollins-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Uribe-Pederson-Pitcher | 3.21 |
| 168 | Kendrick-Uribe-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Crawford-Rollins-Pederson-Pitcher | 3.31 |
| 169 | Uribe-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Crawford-Rollins-Pederson-Pitcher | 3.32 |
| 170 | Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Pederson-Pitcher | 3.44 |
Tuesday, October 07, 2014
Dodgers vs Cardinals - NLDS Game 4 Simulation Results
| Away | Home | Away Pitcher | Home Pitcher | Favorite | Away RS | Home RS | Win % | Total Runs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dodgers | Cardinals | Clayton Kershaw | Shelby Miller | Dodgers | 3.92 | 2.76 | 60.78 | 6.67 |
Top 100 Most Likely Final Scores
| Rank | Dodgers | Cardinals | Occurrences | Rank | Dodgers | Cardinals | Occurrences | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 44148 | 51 | 0 | 5 | 5338 | |
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 41490 | 52 | 9 | 1 | 5095 | |
| 3 | 2 | 1 | 38620 | 53 | 7 | 5 | 4955 | |
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 35107 | 54 | 9 | 0 | 4731 | |
| 5 | 3 | 1 | 31492 | 55 | 9 | 2 | 4540 | |
| 6 | 3 | 4 | 30381 | 56 | 8 | 4 | 4019 | |
| 7 | 2 | 0 | 30194 | 57 | 2 | 7 | 4011 | |
| 8 | 1 | 0 | 29112 | 58 | 7 | 6 | 3885 | |
| 9 | 0 | 1 | 28103 | 59 | 3 | 7 | 3815 | |
| 10 | 3 | 0 | 26348 | 60 | 4 | 7 | 3596 | |
| 11 | 4 | 2 | 25349 | 61 | 9 | 3 | 3529 | |
| 12 | 4 | 1 | 25304 | 62 | 1 | 7 | 3481 | |
| 13 | 4 | 3 | 24420 | 63 | 0 | 6 | 3451 | |
| 14 | 4 | 0 | 21859 | 64 | 10 | 1 | 3286 | |
| 15 | 1 | 3 | 19450 | 65 | 8 | 5 | 3126 | |
| 16 | 5 | 1 | 19022 | 66 | 10 | 0 | 3098 | |
| 17 | 5 | 2 | 18849 | 67 | 5 | 7 | 3041 | |
| 18 | 4 | 5 | 18836 | 68 | 10 | 2 | 3019 | |
| 19 | 5 | 0 | 17394 | 69 | 9 | 4 | 2646 | |
| 20 | 2 | 4 | 16857 | 70 | 2 | 8 | 2496 | |
| 21 | 0 | 2 | 16665 | 71 | 7 | 8 | 2481 | |
| 22 | 5 | 3 | 16534 | 72 | 8 | 6 | 2383 | |
| 23 | 5 | 4 | 14567 | 73 | 10 | 3 | 2359 | |
| 24 | 6 | 1 | 14365 | 74 | 3 | 8 | 2322 | |
| 25 | 1 | 4 | 13525 | 75 | 1 | 8 | 2280 | |
| 26 | 6 | 2 | 13437 | 76 | 0 | 7 | 2261 | |
| 27 | 6 | 0 | 13409 | 77 | 11 | 1 | 2134 | |
| 28 | 6 | 3 | 11542 | 78 | 4 | 8 | 2015 | |
| 29 | 0 | 3 | 11246 | 79 | 11 | 0 | 2008 | |
| 30 | 3 | 5 | 11034 | 80 | 9 | 5 | 1972 | |
| 31 | 2 | 5 | 10801 | 81 | 11 | 2 | 1914 | |
| 32 | 5 | 6 | 10720 | 82 | 5 | 8 | 1872 | |
| 33 | 7 | 1 | 10543 | 83 | 8 | 7 | 1855 | |
| 34 | 7 | 0 | 9854 | 84 | 10 | 4 | 1703 | |
| 35 | 7 | 2 | 9672 | 85 | 2 | 9 | 1646 | |
| 36 | 6 | 4 | 9468 | 86 | 11 | 3 | 1553 | |
| 37 | 1 | 5 | 8825 | 87 | 3 | 9 | 1546 | |
| 38 | 6 | 5 | 8055 | 88 | 6 | 8 | 1449 | |
| 39 | 0 | 4 | 7869 | 89 | 9 | 6 | 1435 | |
| 40 | 7 | 3 | 7729 | 90 | 0 | 8 | 1426 | |
| 41 | 8 | 1 | 7302 | 91 | 12 | 1 | 1408 | |
| 42 | 8 | 0 | 6853 | 92 | 1 | 9 | 1396 | |
| 43 | 3 | 6 | 6844 | 93 | 4 | 9 | 1293 | |
| 44 | 8 | 2 | 6740 | 94 | 12 | 2 | 1289 | |
| 45 | 2 | 6 | 6625 | 95 | 12 | 0 | 1274 | |
| 46 | 7 | 4 | 6286 | 96 | 11 | 4 | 1210 | |
| 47 | 4 | 6 | 6189 | 97 | 10 | 5 | 1194 | |
| 48 | 1 | 6 | 5698 | 98 | 8 | 9 | 1134 | |
| 49 | 8 | 3 | 5397 | 99 | 5 | 9 | 1027 | |
| 50 | 6 | 7 | 5359 | 100 | 9 | 7 | 1018 |
Note 1 Million games simulated.
.
Monday, October 06, 2014
Dodgers vs Cardinals - NLDS Game 3 Simulation Results
| Away | Home | Away Pitcher | Home Pitcher | Favorite | Away RS | Home RS | Win % | Total runs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dodgers | Cardinals | Hyun-Jin Ryu | John Lackey | Dodgers | 4.19 | 3.49 | 55.46 | 7.68 |
Top 100 Most Likely Final Scores
| Rank | Dodgers | Cardinals | Occurrences | Rank | Dodgers | Cardinals | Occurrences | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 38820 | 51 | 8 | 3 | 6124 | |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 33765 | 52 | 2 | 7 | 6086 | |
| 3 | 3 | 4 | 33268 | 53 | 0 | 5 | 6039 | |
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 31617 | 54 | 3 | 7 | 6034 | |
| 5 | 2 | 1 | 28810 | 55 | 4 | 7 | 5888 | |
| 6 | 4 | 3 | 25660 | 56 | 8 | 4 | 5319 | |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 25175 | 57 | 5 | 7 | 5116 | |
| 8 | 4 | 2 | 24109 | 58 | 1 | 7 | 5106 | |
| 9 | 4 | 5 | 23843 | 59 | 8 | 0 | 4806 | |
| 10 | 4 | 1 | 20331 | 60 | 9 | 2 | 4778 | |
| 11 | 1 | 3 | 19012 | 61 | 8 | 5 | 4552 | |
| 12 | 2 | 4 | 18768 | 62 | 9 | 1 | 4522 | |
| 13 | 5 | 2 | 18291 | 63 | 7 | 8 | 4397 | |
| 14 | 5 | 3 | 18225 | 64 | 9 | 3 | 4183 | |
| 15 | 2 | 0 | 18029 | 65 | 0 | 6 | 4139 | |
| 16 | 5 | 4 | 17716 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 4125 | |
| 17 | 0 | 1 | 17041 | 67 | 2 | 8 | 4077 | |
| 18 | 3 | 0 | 16492 | 68 | 8 | 6 | 3729 | |
| 19 | 1 | 0 | 16369 | 69 | 4 | 8 | 3644 | |
| 20 | 5 | 1 | 15884 | 70 | 9 | 4 | 3557 | |
| 21 | 5 | 6 | 15075 | 71 | 1 | 8 | 3431 | |
| 22 | 1 | 4 | 14840 | 72 | 9 | 0 | 3281 | |
| 23 | 3 | 5 | 14150 | 73 | 8 | 7 | 3256 | |
| 24 | 4 | 0 | 13818 | 74 | 5 | 8 | 3254 | |
| 25 | 2 | 5 | 13560 | 75 | 10 | 2 | 3213 | |
| 26 | 6 | 3 | 13178 | 76 | 0 | 7 | 2988 | |
| 27 | 6 | 2 | 13141 | 77 | 10 | 1 | 2982 | |
| 28 | 0 | 2 | 12817 | 78 | 10 | 3 | 2861 | |
| 29 | 6 | 1 | 12129 | 79 | 6 | 8 | 2841 | |
| 30 | 6 | 4 | 11978 | 80 | 9 | 5 | 2827 | |
| 31 | 5 | 0 | 11394 | 81 | 2 | 9 | 2720 | |
| 32 | 6 | 5 | 11017 | 82 | 3 | 9 | 2704 | |
| 33 | 0 | 3 | 10364 | 83 | 10 | 4 | 2451 | |
| 34 | 1 | 5 | 10148 | 84 | 9 | 6 | 2374 | |
| 35 | 7 | 2 | 9872 | 85 | 4 | 9 | 2336 | |
| 36 | 3 | 6 | 9756 | 86 | 10 | 0 | 2267 | |
| 37 | 2 | 6 | 9130 | 87 | 1 | 9 | 2175 | |
| 38 | 7 | 3 | 9129 | 88 | 11 | 2 | 2070 | |
| 39 | 7 | 1 | 9116 | 89 | 8 | 9 | 2067 | |
| 40 | 6 | 0 | 9003 | 90 | 11 | 1 | 2027 | |
| 41 | 4 | 6 | 8921 | 91 | 0 | 8 | 1987 | |
| 42 | 6 | 7 | 8511 | 92 | 11 | 3 | 1876 | |
| 43 | 7 | 4 | 8319 | 93 | 10 | 5 | 1872 | |
| 44 | 0 | 4 | 8032 | 94 | 5 | 9 | 1863 | |
| 45 | 1 | 6 | 7350 | 95 | 9 | 7 | 1842 | |
| 46 | 7 | 5 | 7211 | 96 | 2 | 10 | 1802 | |
| 47 | 8 | 2 | 6870 | 97 | 3 | 10 | 1752 | |
| 48 | 7 | 0 | 6788 | 98 | 6 | 9 | 1752 | |
| 49 | 8 | 1 | 6642 | 99 | 4 | 10 | 1545 | |
| 50 | 7 | 6 | 6213 | 100 | 11 | 4 | 1544 |
Note: Based off of 1 million games simulated.
.
Friday, October 03, 2014
Cardinals vs Dodgers - NLDS Game 2 Simulation Results
| Away | Home | Away Pitcher | Home Pitcher | Favorite | Away RS | Home RS | Win % | Total Runs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cardinals | Dodgers | Lance Lynn | Zach Greinke | Dodgers | 3.10 | 4.03 | 63.2572 | 7.13 |
Top 100 Most Likely Final Scores
| Rank | Cardinals | Dodgers | Occurrences | Rank | Cardinals | Dodgers | Occurrences | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 48798 | 51 | 7 | 2 | 5686 | |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 46130 | 52 | 7 | 4 | 5527 | |
| 3 | 3 | 4 | 38320 | 53 | 3 | 8 | 5360 | |
| 4 | 1 | 3 | 29091 | 54 | 0 | 8 | 5169 | |
| 5 | 0 | 1 | 28194 | 55 | 5 | 7 | 4980 | |
| 6 | 3 | 2 | 26629 | 56 | 7 | 5 | 4946 | |
| 7 | 2 | 1 | 26013 | 57 | 7 | 1 | 4623 | |
| 8 | 4 | 5 | 25848 | 58 | 7 | 6 | 4591 | |
| 9 | 2 | 4 | 25111 | 59 | 2 | 9 | 4503 | |
| 10 | 0 | 2 | 23969 | 60 | 1 | 9 | 4497 | |
| 11 | 1 | 4 | 23862 | 61 | 4 | 8 | 4250 | |
| 12 | 0 | 3 | 22085 | 62 | 6 | 0 | 4102 | |
| 13 | 4 | 3 | 21297 | 63 | 7 | 8 | 3833 | |
| 14 | 2 | 5 | 19514 | 64 | 8 | 3 | 3749 | |
| 15 | 3 | 1 | 19220 | 65 | 3 | 9 | 3733 | |
| 16 | 4 | 2 | 18548 | 66 | 0 | 9 | 3656 | |
| 17 | 0 | 4 | 17950 | 67 | 8 | 2 | 3631 | |
| 18 | 1 | 5 | 17554 | 68 | 5 | 8 | 3470 | |
| 19 | 3 | 5 | 16821 | 69 | 8 | 4 | 3444 | |
| 20 | 5 | 6 | 15098 | 70 | 1 | 10 | 3040 | |
| 21 | 1 | 0 | 14606 | 71 | 8 | 1 | 3005 | |
| 22 | 5 | 4 | 14223 | 72 | 2 | 10 | 2977 | |
| 23 | 4 | 1 | 14066 | 73 | 8 | 5 | 2967 | |
| 24 | 0 | 5 | 14036 | 74 | 4 | 9 | 2894 | |
| 25 | 5 | 3 | 13721 | 75 | 7 | 0 | 2691 | |
| 26 | 1 | 6 | 12928 | 76 | 8 | 6 | 2547 | |
| 27 | 2 | 0 | 12866 | 77 | 0 | 10 | 2459 | |
| 28 | 2 | 6 | 12832 | 78 | 3 | 10 | 2456 | |
| 29 | 5 | 2 | 12745 | 79 | 6 | 8 | 2456 | |
| 30 | 3 | 6 | 12114 | 80 | 9 | 3 | 2340 | |
| 31 | 0 | 6 | 10412 | 81 | 9 | 2 | 2240 | |
| 32 | 3 | 0 | 10248 | 82 | 9 | 4 | 2132 | |
| 33 | 5 | 1 | 10000 | 83 | 8 | 7 | 2127 | |
| 34 | 4 | 6 | 9600 | 84 | 5 | 9 | 2070 | |
| 35 | 2 | 7 | 9234 | 85 | 1 | 11 | 1945 | |
| 36 | 1 | 7 | 9133 | 86 | 2 | 11 | 1934 | |
| 37 | 6 | 3 | 8959 | 87 | 9 | 1 | 1862 | |
| 38 | 6 | 4 | 8693 | 88 | 4 | 10 | 1833 | |
| 39 | 6 | 2 | 8502 | 89 | 8 | 0 | 1802 | |
| 40 | 6 | 5 | 8337 | 90 | 9 | 5 | 1783 | |
| 41 | 3 | 7 | 8000 | 91 | 8 | 9 | 1694 | |
| 42 | 4 | 0 | 7863 | 92 | 3 | 11 | 1646 | |
| 43 | 6 | 7 | 7794 | 93 | 0 | 11 | 1591 | |
| 44 | 0 | 7 | 7603 | 94 | 6 | 9 | 1572 | |
| 45 | 6 | 1 | 6976 | 95 | 9 | 6 | 1471 | |
| 46 | 4 | 7 | 6924 | 96 | 10 | 3 | 1402 | |
| 47 | 1 | 8 | 6602 | 97 | 10 | 2 | 1352 | |
| 48 | 2 | 8 | 6319 | 98 | 1 | 12 | 1337 | |
| 49 | 5 | 0 | 5856 | 99 | 5 | 10 | 1305 | |
| 50 | 7 | 3 | 5749 | 100 | 2 | 12 | 1255 |
Chances of each team scoring X number of runs
| Runs Scored | Cardinals | Dodgers |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 13.99% | 6.28% |
| 1 | 17.27% | 11.66% |
| 2 | 17.33% | 15.12% |
| 3 | 14.72% | 15.90% |
| 4 | 11.62% | 14.22% |
| 5 | 8.57% | 11.43% |
| 6 | 5.98% | 8.36% |
| 7 | 4.04% | 5.85% |
| 8 | 2.61% | 3.95% |
| 9 | 1.62% | 2.65% |
| 10 | 0.96% | 1.72% |
Note: Based on 1 million games simulated
Cardinals vs Dodgers - NLDS Game 1 Simulation Results
| Away | Home | Away Pitcher | Home Pitcher | Favorite | Away RS | Home RS | Win % | Total Runs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cardinals | Dodgers | Adam Wainwright | Clayton Kershaw | Dodgers | 1.97 | 3.27 | 69.713 | 5.24 |
Top 100 Most Likely Final Scores
| Rank | Cardinals | Dodgers | Occurences | Rank | Cardinals | Dodgers | Occurences | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 36711 | 51 | 6 | 0 | 1531 | |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 36555 | 52 | 4 | 7 | 1526 | |
| 3 | 0 | 2 | 27147 | 53 | 0 | 10 | 1353 | |
| 4 | 2 | 3 | 26247 | 54 | 7 | 2 | 1344 | |
| 5 | 0 | 3 | 22578 | 55 | 7 | 1 | 1331 | |
| 6 | 1 | 3 | 19914 | 56 | 3 | 8 | 1306 | |
| 7 | 2 | 1 | 19333 | 57 | 6 | 7 | 1306 | |
| 8 | 0 | 4 | 16891 | 58 | 7 | 3 | 1275 | |
| 9 | 1 | 0 | 16225 | 59 | 2 | 9 | 1201 | |
| 10 | 3 | 4 | 14714 | 60 | 1 | 10 | 1091 | |
| 11 | 1 | 4 | 14711 | 61 | 7 | 4 | 1071 | |
| 12 | 3 | 2 | 13676 | 62 | 5 | 7 | 957 | |
| 13 | 0 | 5 | 12308 | 63 | 7 | 5 | 903 | |
| 14 | 2 | 4 | 11691 | 64 | 0 | 11 | 900 | |
| 15 | 2 | 0 | 10994 | 65 | 7 | 0 | 897 | |
| 16 | 3 | 1 | 10788 | 66 | 4 | 8 | 863 | |
| 17 | 1 | 5 | 9691 | 67 | 3 | 9 | 828 | |
| 18 | 0 | 6 | 8502 | 68 | 2 | 10 | 769 | |
| 19 | 4 | 3 | 7979 | 69 | 7 | 6 | 744 | |
| 20 | 2 | 5 | 7900 | 70 | 8 | 2 | 740 | |
| 21 | 4 | 2 | 7791 | 71 | 8 | 1 | 722 | |
| 22 | 4 | 5 | 7234 | 72 | 8 | 3 | 709 | |
| 23 | 3 | 0 | 6664 | 73 | 1 | 11 | 650 | |
| 24 | 1 | 6 | 6612 | 74 | 8 | 4 | 576 | |
| 25 | 4 | 1 | 6519 | 75 | 5 | 8 | 542 | |
| 26 | 3 | 5 | 5515 | 76 | 4 | 9 | 541 | |
| 27 | 0 | 7 | 5381 | 77 | 3 | 10 | 517 | |
| 28 | 2 | 6 | 4976 | 78 | 8 | 5 | 507 | |
| 29 | 5 | 3 | 4237 | 79 | 2 | 11 | 491 | |
| 30 | 4 | 0 | 4185 | 80 | 0 | 12 | 457 | |
| 31 | 5 | 2 | 4153 | 81 | 7 | 8 | 454 | |
| 32 | 1 | 7 | 4074 | 82 | 8 | 0 | 430 | |
| 33 | 5 | 4 | 3825 | 83 | 9 | 2 | 409 | |
| 34 | 5 | 1 | 3813 | 84 | 1 | 12 | 396 | |
| 35 | 3 | 6 | 3724 | 85 | 9 | 1 | 366 | |
| 36 | 0 | 8 | 3494 | 86 | 8 | 6 | 360 | |
| 37 | 2 | 7 | 3197 | 87 | 9 | 3 | 352 | |
| 38 | 5 | 6 | 3194 | 88 | 3 | 11 | 349 | |
| 39 | 1 | 8 | 2686 | 89 | 6 | 8 | 336 | |
| 40 | 5 | 0 | 2489 | 90 | 4 | 10 | 322 | |
| 41 | 6 | 2 | 2423 | 91 | 5 | 9 | 302 | |
| 42 | 4 | 6 | 2419 | 92 | 8 | 7 | 301 | |
| 43 | 6 | 3 | 2344 | 93 | 2 | 12 | 293 | |
| 44 | 6 | 1 | 2267 | 94 | 9 | 4 | 293 | |
| 45 | 0 | 9 | 2156 | 95 | 0 | 13 | 285 | |
| 46 | 3 | 7 | 2131 | 96 | 9 | 0 | 264 | |
| 47 | 2 | 8 | 2021 | 97 | 9 | 5 | 241 | |
| 48 | 6 | 4 | 2016 | 98 | 10 | 2 | 224 | |
| 49 | 6 | 5 | 1819 | 99 | 6 | 9 | 218 | |
| 50 | 1 | 9 | 1718 | 100 | 4 | 11 | 212 |
Note: Based off of 500,000 games simulated.
Friday, August 15, 2014
Brewers vs Dodgers - Simulation Results 8/15
| Away | Home | Away Pitcher | Home Pitcher | Favorite | Away RS | Home RS | Fave Win% | Total RS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brewers | Dodgers | Jimmy Nelson | Zach Greinke | Dodgers | 2.998 | 3.533 | 59.25% | 6.531 |
Top 100 Most Likely Final Scores
| Rank | Brewers | Dodgers | Occurrences | Rank | Brewers | Dodgers | Occurrences | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 5314 | 51 | 4 | 7 | 510 | |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 5247 | 52 | 6 | 0 | 496 | |
| 3 | 3 | 4 | 3925 | 53 | 1 | 8 | 491 | |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 3377 | 54 | 7 | 1 | 486 | |
| 5 | 3 | 2 | 3332 | 55 | 7 | 5 | 436 | |
| 6 | 1 | 3 | 3266 | 56 | 0 | 8 | 428 | |
| 7 | 0 | 1 | 3186 | 57 | 5 | 7 | 421 | |
| 8 | 2 | 4 | 2690 | 58 | 8 | 2 | 386 | |
| 9 | 0 | 2 | 2506 | 59 | 3 | 8 | 383 | |
| 10 | 1 | 4 | 2462 | 60 | 8 | 3 | 367 | |
| 11 | 4 | 3 | 2420 | 61 | 7 | 6 | 362 | |
| 12 | 0 | 3 | 2381 | 62 | 2 | 9 | 356 | |
| 13 | 4 | 5 | 2346 | 63 | 1 | 9 | 350 | |
| 14 | 3 | 1 | 2329 | 64 | 7 | 0 | 322 | |
| 15 | 4 | 2 | 2074 | 65 | 8 | 1 | 311 | |
| 16 | 1 | 0 | 1918 | 66 | 8 | 4 | 303 | |
| 17 | 2 | 5 | 1893 | 67 | 0 | 9 | 275 | |
| 18 | 0 | 4 | 1802 | 68 | 3 | 9 | 274 | |
| 19 | 4 | 1 | 1755 | 69 | 4 | 8 | 248 | |
| 20 | 2 | 0 | 1740 | 70 | 8 | 5 | 248 | |
| 21 | 3 | 5 | 1715 | 71 | 5 | 8 | 242 | |
| 22 | 1 | 5 | 1650 | 72 | 7 | 8 | 233 | |
| 23 | 5 | 3 | 1496 | 73 | 9 | 2 | 224 | |
| 24 | 5 | 4 | 1495 | 74 | 8 | 0 | 214 | |
| 25 | 3 | 0 | 1439 | 75 | 1 | 10 | 210 | |
| 26 | 5 | 2 | 1379 | 76 | 2 | 10 | 209 | |
| 27 | 0 | 5 | 1203 | 77 | 4 | 9 | 208 | |
| 28 | 5 | 1 | 1176 | 78 | 9 | 1 | 207 | |
| 29 | 2 | 6 | 1163 | 79 | 9 | 3 | 185 | |
| 30 | 1 | 6 | 1131 | 80 | 3 | 10 | 183 | |
| 31 | 5 | 6 | 1125 | 81 | 0 | 10 | 176 | |
| 32 | 3 | 6 | 1071 | 82 | 8 | 6 | 176 | |
| 33 | 4 | 0 | 984 | 83 | 6 | 8 | 162 | |
| 34 | 4 | 6 | 909 | 84 | 9 | 4 | 159 | |
| 35 | 6 | 3 | 903 | 85 | 8 | 7 | 153 | |
| 36 | 6 | 2 | 890 | 86 | 4 | 10 | 137 | |
| 37 | 0 | 6 | 814 | 87 | 9 | 5 | 136 | |
| 38 | 6 | 4 | 814 | 88 | 2 | 11 | 135 | |
| 39 | 2 | 7 | 792 | 89 | 1 | 11 | 131 | |
| 40 | 6 | 1 | 769 | 90 | 5 | 9 | 130 | |
| 41 | 1 | 7 | 767 | 91 | 9 | 0 | 126 | |
| 42 | 6 | 5 | 743 | 92 | 10 | 2 | 120 | |
| 43 | 5 | 0 | 711 | 93 | 10 | 3 | 117 | |
| 44 | 0 | 7 | 593 | 94 | 3 | 11 | 116 | |
| 45 | 3 | 7 | 592 | 95 | 10 | 1 | 112 | |
| 46 | 7 | 2 | 587 | 96 | 10 | 4 | 106 | |
| 47 | 7 | 3 | 550 | 97 | 6 | 9 | 103 | |
| 48 | 6 | 7 | 541 | 98 | 9 | 6 | 102 | |
| 49 | 2 | 8 | 524 | 99 | 8 | 9 | 94 | |
| 50 | 7 | 4 | 518 | 100 | 2 | 12 | 88 |
Miscellaneous Notes:
1) The best defensive players on the Brewers are CF-Carlos Gomez, SS-Jean Segura and C-Jonathon Lucroy
2) Brewers 2B-Scooter Gennett can not hit left-handed pitching to save his life. Rickie Weeks will hit for him if a LHP comes in to face him.
3) The Brewers have three former starting pitchers in their bullpen... Zach Duke (169 GS), Tom Gorzelanny (121 GS) and Marco Estrada (71 GS).
4) The Brewers have three holes in their bullpen... Marco Estrada, Jeremy Jeffress and Brandon Kintzler.
5) Brewers hitters do not draw very many walks... Lucroy and Reynolds are the only two who draw an average amount of walks.
6) Brewers starting pitcher Jimmy Nelson is probably better than projection systems currently give him credit for.
Friday, May 09, 2014
Giants vs Dodgers - Friday's Simulation Results
| Away | Home | Away Pitcher | Home Pitcher | Favorite | Away RS | Home RS | Win % | Total Runs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Giants | Dodgers | Madison Bumgarner | Paul Maholm | Giants | 4.00408 | 3.28917 | 55.448 | 7.29325 |
Top 100 Most Likely Final Scores
| Rank | Giants | Dodgers | Occurrences | Rank | Giants | Dodgers | Occurrences | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4259 | 51 | 4 | 7 | 586 | |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 3706 | 52 | 0 | 5 | 572 | |
| 3 | 3 | 4 | 3699 | 53 | 3 | 7 | 563 | |
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 3406 | 54 | 5 | 7 | 559 | |
| 5 | 2 | 1 | 2928 | 55 | 7 | 6 | 533 | |
| 6 | 4 | 3 | 2693 | 56 | 2 | 7 | 506 | |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 2688 | 57 | 8 | 4 | 504 | |
| 8 | 4 | 2 | 2568 | 58 | 8 | 0 | 467 | |
| 9 | 4 | 5 | 2500 | 59 | 9 | 3 | 462 | |
| 10 | 4 | 1 | 2287 | 60 | 9 | 2 | 454 | |
| 11 | 1 | 3 | 2200 | 61 | 9 | 1 | 445 | |
| 12 | 5 | 3 | 1959 | 62 | 1 | 7 | 421 | |
| 13 | 0 | 1 | 1958 | 63 | 0 | 6 | 400 | |
| 14 | 2 | 4 | 1958 | 64 | 8 | 5 | 388 | |
| 15 | 5 | 2 | 1935 | 65 | 3 | 8 | 375 | |
| 16 | 5 | 1 | 1797 | 66 | 7 | 8 | 372 | |
| 17 | 5 | 4 | 1779 | 67 | 2 | 8 | 345 | |
| 18 | 3 | 0 | 1713 | 68 | 8 | 6 | 320 | |
| 19 | 2 | 0 | 1608 | 69 | 9 | 4 | 316 | |
| 20 | 1 | 0 | 1573 | 70 | 4 | 8 | 287 | |
| 21 | 3 | 5 | 1538 | 71 | 9 | 0 | 287 | |
| 22 | 1 | 4 | 1529 | 72 | 1 | 8 | 280 | |
| 23 | 5 | 6 | 1481 | 73 | 10 | 2 | 276 | |
| 24 | 0 | 2 | 1461 | 74 | 10 | 1 | 273 | |
| 25 | 6 | 3 | 1451 | 75 | 6 | 8 | 266 | |
| 26 | 6 | 2 | 1437 | 76 | 9 | 5 | 264 | |
| 27 | 4 | 0 | 1433 | 77 | 10 | 3 | 260 | |
| 28 | 2 | 5 | 1395 | 78 | 5 | 8 | 256 | |
| 29 | 6 | 1 | 1329 | 79 | 0 | 7 | 252 | |
| 30 | 5 | 0 | 1222 | 80 | 8 | 7 | 249 | |
| 31 | 6 | 4 | 1212 | 81 | 3 | 9 | 243 | |
| 32 | 0 | 3 | 1136 | 82 | 10 | 4 | 230 | |
| 33 | 6 | 5 | 1088 | 83 | 2 | 9 | 214 | |
| 34 | 7 | 2 | 1084 | 84 | 10 | 0 | 212 | |
| 35 | 7 | 1 | 1017 | 85 | 9 | 6 | 199 | |
| 36 | 1 | 5 | 980 | 86 | 1 | 9 | 175 | |
| 37 | 4 | 6 | 973 | 87 | 4 | 9 | 173 | |
| 38 | 6 | 0 | 966 | 88 | 0 | 8 | 167 | |
| 39 | 7 | 3 | 938 | 89 | 11 | 1 | 166 | |
| 40 | 3 | 6 | 917 | 90 | 8 | 9 | 164 | |
| 41 | 2 | 6 | 873 | 91 | 10 | 5 | 154 | |
| 42 | 0 | 4 | 820 | 92 | 5 | 9 | 152 | |
| 43 | 7 | 4 | 806 | 93 | 11 | 2 | 150 | |
| 44 | 6 | 7 | 739 | 94 | 11 | 3 | 146 | |
| 45 | 8 | 2 | 719 | 95 | 6 | 9 | 144 | |
| 46 | 8 | 1 | 709 | 96 | 9 | 7 | 142 | |
| 47 | 7 | 0 | 677 | 97 | 11 | 0 | 142 | |
| 48 | 1 | 6 | 676 | 98 | 3 | 10 | 140 | |
| 49 | 8 | 3 | 673 | 99 | 2 | 10 | 131 | |
| 50 | 7 | 5 | 661 | 100 | 11 | 4 | 119 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)